On 2022-03-13 7:34 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> they are spending a lot on R&D, especially on the silicon side of things.
>
> Name a single company similar to Apple that has _less_ R&D spending.
>
> HINT: You can't.
>

According to:

<https://www.fdiintelligence.com/article/79672>

for 2020:

Samsung

Microsoft

Intel

> Name a single company similar to Apple that has _more_ MARKETING spending.
>
> Hint: You can't.

You show that Apple spends the most.

Hint: you can't.

On 2022-03-13 7:32 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>> In terms of consumer products it *might* be considered a small player,
>> but it also very big in the main telecoms industry.
>
> Everyone knows Apple's R&D spending has _always_ been very low.
>
> Apple is a MARKETING powerhouse - not an R&D one.
>
> For example... Name a single company similar to Apple that has _less_
> R&D spending.
>
> HINT: You can't.

Already done.

On 2022-03-13 7:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Apple simply make the silicon great to their exact spec and needs.
>
> Someone needs to inform these illiterate iKooks that Apple does not make
> the
> Silicon.

Apple doesn't manufacture it...

....they just design it and have it made by a chip foundry.

> It's like saying Intel made a DELL PC just because your Dell laptop has a
> sticker on the outside saying "Intel inside".

On 2022-03-13 7:45 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> that hasn't been an issue for apple, whose chipsets are more
>> power-efficient and more capable
>
> Why is it only Apple that has had to not only _secretly_ throttle their
> CPUs
> due to their crappy stability but also to secretly backdate the release
> notes?
>
> HINT: It's not a good design if it only works well for one year, nospam.

HINT: that was YEARS ago.

The technology world moves fast.

On 2022-03-13 7:48 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>> According to that list, Samsung spends the exact same amount. Samsung
>> is probably the most similar company you get to Apple in terms of
>> consumer electronic devices
>
> Find a company similar to Apple that spends _less_ in R&D than does Apple.
> HINT: You can't.

Already done.

>
> Find a company similar to Apple that spends _more_ in Marketing than Apple?
> HINT: You can't.

You can't show that Apple spends the most.

>
> Apple is a marketing powerhouse - not an R&D powerhouse.
> Hell, Apple can't even _integrate_ an existing modem, let alone design one.
>
> At least Samsung can do both.

On 2022-03-11, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-03-11 12:39 p.m., lew wrote:
>> On 2022-03-08, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> And no one but a few kooks try to claim that these are anything but
>>> Apple's intellectual property.
>>>
>>> 'The Apple M1 Ultra is Apple's latest piece of bespoke silicon, and it's
>>> the most powerful M1 chip the company has ever made.
>>>
>>> Unveiled during the March 2022 Apple Event, the M1 Ultra is an
>>> incredibly powerful SoC (system-on-chip). It's basically two M1 Max
>>> chips paired together, using a heretofore "hidden feature" of the Max:
>>> special die-to-die interconnection tech that lets two Max chips work
>>> together for all-new heights of power.
>>>
>>> Apple calls this interconnection technology "UltraFusion", and it
>>> appears to be enabling Apple silicon to reach unprecedented levels of
>>> performance.'
>>>
>>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m1-ultra-everything-we-know-so-far>
>>>
>>> 'We were expecting to see an all-new M2 chip unveiled early in 2022, not
>>> a new top-end M1 chip like the Ultra, but you won't catch me
>>> complaining; given that the M1 Max blew my expectations out of the water
>>> in 2021, the prospect of a new chip that's effectively twice as powerful
>>> is very exciting.'
>>
>> Doesn't matter. If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,
>> then access/running speed is ZERO. A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, etc
>> are faster than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the
>> supermarket faster than me unless they break the law by ignoring
>> the traffic lights, stop signs & school zones as well as pedestrians &
>> bicyles.
>
> In what way does the OS sandboxing prevent an app from utilizing greater
> processor speeds and additional cores?
>
> Don't be afraid to speak in technical language.

I downloaded the ipad user guide from apple store.
The "speed increase" did not let me use my app of choice,
MapleReader SE, to read the ipad user guide; in fact the
"faster" cpu did not let me even access or know where the
ipad is located on the ipad.

On 2022-03-15 12:40 p.m., lew wrote:
> On 2022-03-11, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-03-11 12:39 p.m., lew wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-08, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> And no one but a few kooks try to claim that these are anything but
>>>> Apple's intellectual property.
>>>>
>>>> 'The Apple M1 Ultra is Apple's latest piece of bespoke silicon, and it's
>>>> the most powerful M1 chip the company has ever made.
>>>>
>>>> Unveiled during the March 2022 Apple Event, the M1 Ultra is an
>>>> incredibly powerful SoC (system-on-chip). It's basically two M1 Max
>>>> chips paired together, using a heretofore "hidden feature" of the Max:
>>>> special die-to-die interconnection tech that lets two Max chips work
>>>> together for all-new heights of power.
>>>>
>>>> Apple calls this interconnection technology "UltraFusion", and it
>>>> appears to be enabling Apple silicon to reach unprecedented levels of
>>>> performance.'
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m1-ultra-everything-we-know-so-far>
>>>>
>>>> 'We were expecting to see an all-new M2 chip unveiled early in 2022, not
>>>> a new top-end M1 chip like the Ultra, but you won't catch me
>>>> complaining; given that the M1 Max blew my expectations out of the water
>>>> in 2021, the prospect of a new chip that's effectively twice as powerful
>>>> is very exciting.'
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter. If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,
>>> then access/running speed is ZERO. A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, etc
>>> are faster than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the
>>> supermarket faster than me unless they break the law by ignoring
>>> the traffic lights, stop signs & school zones as well as pedestrians &
>>> bicyles.
>>
>> In what way does the OS sandboxing prevent an app from utilizing greater
>> processor speeds and additional cores?
>>
>> Don't be afraid to speak in technical language.
>
> I downloaded the ipad user guide from apple store.
> The "speed increase" did not let me use my app of choice,
> MapleReader SE, to read the ipad user guide; in fact the
> "faster" cpu did not let me even access or know where the
> ipad is located on the ipad.

That wasn't the question I asked.

In message <t0qq3a$ila$1@dont-email.me> lew <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:
> I downloaded the ipad user guide from apple store.
> The "speed increase" did not let me use my app of choice,
> MapleReader SE, to read the ipad user guide

Makes sense, the user guide is in iBook format which is fine since the
Books app is part of iOS so every iOS or iPadOS user has it.

> in fact the "faster" cpu did not let me even access or know where the
> ipad is located on the ipad.

I cannot parse that.

--
'My strength is like the strength of ten because my heart is pure,'
said Carrot. 'Really? Well, there's eleven of them.' --Jingo

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> that apple silicon is
>
> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.

It's Apple Silicon, just like AMD, nVidia, Broadcom, etc products
manufactured by TSMC are theirs. To suggest that TSMC has any ownership
over the products is factually incorrect.

If you hired and paid a carpenter to make you a kitchen unit to your
design, does it belong to the carpenter?

On 2022-03-16 8:43 a.m., Chris wrote:
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>> that apple silicon is
>>
>> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
>> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.
>
> It's Apple Silicon, just like AMD, nVidia, Broadcom, etc products
> manufactured by TSMC are theirs. To suggest that TSMC has any ownership
> over the products is factually incorrect.
>
> If you hired and paid a carpenter to make you a kitchen unit to your
> design, does it belong to the carpenter?
>

Amazing from a "man" who regularly claims that no one has ever caught
him in a factual error...

....isn't it?

:-)

Chris wrote:

>> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
>> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.
>
> It's Apple Silicon...

No it's not.
It's TSMC Silicon.

At least Intel makes the CPUs when it puts the "Intel Inside" sticker on.

And yet nobody acts like a moron and joyfully claims "Intel Inside" like you
iKooks do (which is how I know you all have phenomenally low self esteem).

If you even use those words, it's a clear indication of either a low IQ or a
low self esteem (most likely both in your case and that of Alan Baker).

> just like AMD, nVidia, Broadcom, etc products
> manufactured by TSMC are theirs. To suggest that TSMC has any ownership
> over the products is factually incorrect.

You don't understand how marketing works.
You think Apple marketing called it that by accident?
Apple Silicon is all marketing and almost no R&D.

> If you hired and paid a carpenter to make you a kitchen unit to your
> design, does it belong to the carpenter?

Apple is all MARKETING and almost no R&D to speak of.
Apple MARKETING is trying to fool people with rather low IQs like you have.

And they did.

On 2022-03-16 10:24 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it
>>> doesn't. It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_
>>> use any term.
>>
>> It's Apple Silicon...
>
> No it's not. It's TSMC Silicon.
>
> At least Intel makes the CPUs when it puts the "Intel Inside" sticker
> on.

Fact: Intel has some of its CPUs built by TSMC

<https://wccftech.com/tsmc-wins-intel-order-for-two-3nm-cpus-to-regain-market-share-lost-to-amd/>
>
> And yet nobody acts like a moron and joyfully claims "Intel Inside"
> like you iKooks do (which is how I know you all have phenomenally low
> self esteem).
>
> If you even use those words, it's a clear indication of either a low
> IQ or a low self esteem (most likely both in your case and that of
> Alan Baker).
>
>> just like AMD, nVidia, Broadcom, etc products manufactured by TSMC
>> are theirs. To suggest that TSMC has any ownership over the
>> products is factually incorrect.
>
> You don't understand how marketing works. You think Apple marketing
> called it that by accident?

How does that address the point he made?

Do you call AMD chips manufactured by TSMC, "TSMC Silicon"?

Same question for nVidia, Broadcom...

....and also Qualcomm (you remember Qualcomm, right?)...

....and Intel.

'TSMC, is the world’s largest contract manufacturer of the semiconductor
chips—otherwise known as integrated circuits, or just chips—that power
our phones, laptops, cars, watches, refrigerators and more. Its clients
include Apple, Intel, Qualcomm, AMD and Nvidia.'

<https://time.com/6102879/semiconductor-chip-shortage-tsmc/>

>
> Apple Silicon is all marketing and almost no R&D.

Yet you cannot find a single source in the tech reporting business that
agrees with you.

>
>> If you hired and paid a carpenter to make you a kitchen unit to
>> your design, does it belong to the carpenter?
>
> Apple is all MARKETING and almost no R&D to speak of. Apple MARKETING
> is trying to fool people with rather low IQs like you have.

Apple spends more on R&D that all but a handful of companies.

In article <t0t6g7$udv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> >> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
> >> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.
> >
> > It's Apple Silicon...
>
> No it's not.
> It's TSMC Silicon.

it's apple silicon. full stop.

> At least Intel makes the CPUs when it puts the "Intel Inside" sticker on.

intel will be using tsmc to fab chips, largely because their own fabs
are very much behind the curve.

<https://www.eetimes.com/intel-will-rely-on-tsmc-for-its-rebound/>
California-based Intel will join Apple to order the world¹s first
3-nm chips from TSMC as the Taiwan chip foundry ramps up its
newest process this year, according to three analysts surveyed. Intel
and Apple are likely to be the only two TSMC customers at that
most-advanced node during the ramp-up, according to the analysts.

<https://www.tweaktown.com/news/83986/tsmc-to-build-intels-new-3nm-cpus-
at-site-in-northern-taiwan/index.html>
TSMC will be making Intel's next-gen processors in the coming years,
with new reports suggesting TSMC will be building the bleeding edge
chips at its latest facility in Baoshan, north of Hsinchu.

nospam wrote:

> it's apple silicon. full stop.

It TSMC Silicon.
It's Apple marketing bullshit.

If Apple said the iPhone was made out of pure gold, you'd believe them.
It's a marketing gimmick.

It works on you low IQ low self esteem iKooks.
Apple can't make any high quality chips.

Apple never has.
Apple never will.

Apple can't.
Nobody in high tech has _lower_ R&D expenses than does Apple.

Nor higher marketing.

Hell, Apple can't even integrate an _existing_ modem IC for Christs sake.
Everyone but Apple did that long ago.

Full stop.

On 2022-03-16 11:45 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> it's apple silicon. full stop.
>
> It TSMC Silicon.
> It's Apple marketing bullshit.

It's Apple Silicon.

Apple designs it

TSMC just builds it under contract...

....just like they do for AMD, nVidia, Broadcom, Qualcomm...

....and Intel.

>
> If Apple said the iPhone was made out of pure gold, you'd believe them.
> It's a marketing gimmick.
>
> It works on you low IQ low self esteem iKooks.
> Apple can't make any high quality chips.

<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/apples-m1-is-a-fast-cpu-but-m1-macs-feel-even-faster-due-to-qos/>

>
> Apple never has.
> Apple never will.
>
> Apple can't.
> Nobody in high tech has _lower_ R&D expenses than does Apple.

Apple spends more on R&D than all but a handful of companies.

>
> Nor higher marketing.
>
> Hell, Apple can't even integrate an _existing_ modem IC for Christs sake.
> Everyone but Apple did that long ago.
>
> Full stop.

In message <160320221344112725%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t0t6g7$udv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>> >> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
>> >> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.
>> >
>> > It's Apple Silicon...
>>
>> No it's not.
>> It's TSMC Silicon.

> it's apple silicon. full stop.

We've already established the dipshit troll does not understand how
manufacturing works. Apple designs the chips, they pay TSMC to
manufacture them. Apple owns the designs and TSMC doesn't own the chips
they make, they belong to Apple.

I suppose Arlen is so dumb he thinks publishers write the books they
publish. Dumbasses will be Dumbasses.

--
'Are you Death?' IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE
SCYTHE.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> it's apple silicon. full stop.
>
> It TSMC Silicon.
> It's Apple marketing bullshit.
>
> If Apple said the iPhone was made out of pure gold, you'd believe them.
> It's a marketing gimmick.

Only if it's iGold.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> fool people with rather low IQs like you have.

You always attack the messenger when you are incapable of an answer, don't
you? It's a giveaway.

Lewis wrote:

> We've already established the dipshit troll does not understand how
> manufacturing works.

"Dipshit Troll Lewis" doesn't realize I worked in Silicon Valley startups
for decades so I'm well aware of how chips are designed and manufactured.

It's Lewis who doesn't understand why Apple trademarked "Apple Silicon".
Anyone who says "Apple Silicon" is an idiot because they fell for a gimmick.

It's _not_ Apple Silicon.
It's MARKETING attempting to make TSMC Silicon "sound" special (to idiots).

*Apple wants you to "think" it's something special and yet it's not.*
That "Apple Silicon" crap is no different than anyone else's TSMC Silicon.

Apple MARKETING wants you to "think" it's special. Super Duper. Oh so Apple.
And yet, it's not.

It's no different than anyone else's TSMS Silicon.
The fact you can't comprehend that means you don't understand what it is.

It's like Chevron calls plain old polyetheramines "Techron" as if "Techron"
is something special when it's not. It's just plain old "soap for gas".

Likewise, Apple Silicon is just plain old TSMC Silicon.
Just as Techron is plain old polyetheramines.

The fact you don't know this means you don't own adult cognitive skills.
Full stop.

On 2022-03-16 1:22 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
>
>> We've already established the dipshit troll does not understand how
>> manufacturing works.
>
> "Dipshit Troll Lewis" doesn't realize I worked in Silicon Valley startups
> for decades so I'm well aware of how chips are designed and manufactured.

There is no proof of this.

>
> It's Lewis who doesn't understand why Apple trademarked "Apple Silicon".
> Anyone who says "Apple Silicon" is an idiot because they fell for a
> gimmick.
>
> It's _not_ Apple Silicon.
> It's MARKETING attempting to make TSMC Silicon "sound" special (to idiots).

Apple designs the chips and then just pays TSMC to build them...

....as do half a dozen other companies.

>
> *Apple wants you to "think" it's something special and yet it's not.*
> That "Apple Silicon" crap is no different than anyone else's TSMC Silicon.

It's faster... ...and uses less power.

Chris wrote:

>> If Apple said the iPhone was made out of pure gold, you'd believe them.
>> It's a marketing gimmick.
>
> Only if it's iGold.

From that joke I hope you're indicating that you understand the gimmick.
If Apple used "iGold" to imply it was gold, it would be an Apple lie.

Just as "Apple Silicon" is an Apple lie.

Apple is _desperate_ to differentiate their IP from everyone else.
Apple can't do that on performance or functionality alone.

So Apple resorts to an _expensive_ marketing campaign.
Instead of spending money on R&D, Apple spends it on marketing bullshit.

"Apple Silicon" is a classic example of Apple wasting money on bullshit.
Every dollar Apple wastes touting that their chips are not what they are is
a dollar _not_ spent in R&D (which is why Apple sucks at SOC design).

The fact remains Apple can't even _integrate_ an _existing_ modem for Gods
sake, and yet, Apple lies to people like you that they make the silicon.

It's TSMC Silicon.
Anyone who believes otherwise has drunk the koolaid from Marketing.

On 2022-03-16 1:26 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> If Apple said the iPhone was made out of pure gold, you'd believe them.
>>> It's a marketing gimmick.
>>
>> Only if it's iGold.
>
> From that joke I hope you're indicating that you understand the gimmick.
> If Apple used "iGold" to imply it was gold, it would be an Apple lie.
>
> Just as "Apple Silicon" is an Apple lie.
>
> Apple is _desperate_ to differentiate their IP from everyone else.
> Apple can't do that on performance or functionality alone.
>
> So Apple resorts to an _expensive_ marketing campaign.
> Instead of spending money on R&D, Apple spends it on marketing bullshit.
>
> "Apple Silicon" is a classic example of Apple wasting money on bullshit.
> Every dollar Apple wastes touting that their chips are not what they are is
> a dollar _not_ spent in R&D (which is why Apple sucks at SOC design).
>
> The fact remains Apple can't even _integrate_ an _existing_ modem for Gods
> sake, and yet, Apple lies to people like you that they make the silicon.
>
> It's TSMC Silicon.
> Anyone who believes otherwise has drunk the koolaid from Marketing.

Everyone in the industry and everyone who is reporting on the industry
agrees that Apple's silicon chips have been design by Apple since the A4:

'The Apple A4 is a PoP SoC manufactured by Samsung, the first SoC Apple
designed in-house.'

<https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303912104575164112770784290?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular>

Which forces me to ask the question:

Are you ignorant...

....or lying?

Chris wrote:

> You always attack the messenger when you are incapable of an answer, don't
> you? It's a giveaway.

The _reason_ you fall for all the marketing tricks is that you have the
confluence of three fundamental traits that _makes_ you the iKook you are:
a. Low IQ
b. No education
c. Low self esteem

You need all three to be an iKook (e.g., Steve isn't an iKook).

If you only had one or two of those traits you wouldn't be an iKook.
You _need_ the low self esteem, for example, to gloat over Apple profits.

And you need the lack of education to fall for all the marketing tricks.
The low IQ also means you can't separate marketing from facts.

It's why you fall for Apple Silicon marketing tricks.
It's not Apple Silicon.
That's a lie

It's plain old TSMC Silicon.
Just like everyone else's TSMC Silicon is.

Apple is _desperate_ to lie to you.
And you fall for it.

Why?
See above why.

On 2022-03-16 1:53 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> You always attack the messenger when you are incapable of an answer,
>> don't
>> you? It's a giveaway.
>
> The _reason_ you fall for all the marketing tricks is that you have the
> confluence of three fundamental traits that _makes_ you the iKook you are:
> a. Low IQ b. No education
> c. Low self esteem
>
> You need all three to be an iKook (e.g., Steve isn't an iKook).
>
> If you only had one or two of those traits you wouldn't be an iKook.
> You _need_ the low self esteem, for example, to gloat over Apple profits.
>
> And you need the lack of education to fall for all the marketing tricks.
> The low IQ also means you can't separate marketing from facts.
>
> It's why you fall for Apple Silicon marketing tricks.
> It's not Apple Silicon.
> That's a lie
>
> It's plain old TSMC Silicon.
> Just like everyone else's TSMC Silicon is.

Really?

You're claiming that TSMC is responsible for the design of all the chips
it makes for AMD, Broadcom, Intel, nVidia...

....and Qualcomm?

In message <t0th46$g10$2@dont-email.me> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-03-16 1:22 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> We've already established the dipshit troll does not understand how
>>> manufacturing works.
>>
>> "Dipshit Troll Lewis" doesn't realize I worked in Silicon Valley startups
>> for decades so I'm well aware of how chips are designed and manufactured.

> There is no proof of this.

All evidence point to the contrary.
>
>> It's Lewis who doesn't understand why Apple trademarked "Apple Silicon".
>> Anyone who says "Apple Silicon" is an idiot because they fell for a
>> gimmick.
>>
>> It's _not_ Apple Silicon.
>> It's MARKETING attempting to make TSMC Silicon "sound" special (to idiots).

> Apple designs the chips and then just pays TSMC to build them...

> ...as do half a dozen other companies.

And no one else can buy Apple' chips because they are APPLE'S CHIPS. If
dipshit troll was right, then anyone could buy an M1 Ultra, but the fact
is that no one can buy that chip and no other chips on the market come
close to the capabilities of the M1 any of the M1s).

>> *Apple wants you to "think" it's something special and yet it's not.*
>> That "Apple Silicon" crap is no different than anyone else's TSMC Silicon.

> It's faster... ...and uses less power.

Far beyond that, even. the way the SoC is designed is far beyond what
anyone else is doing. Not only can you not get a chip like the M1 you
cannot get a chip anything like the M1.

--
Lead me not into temptation, I can find the way.